CUMIS MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY INC CUMIS POLISH SLAVIC FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. MIREK ROSOL (2014)

Defendant Mirek Rosol appeals from a judgment of liability entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, Cumis Mutual Insurance Society, Inc. Cumis, as subrogee of its insured, Polish & Slavic Federal Credit Union, commenced the action against Rosol to recover funds Rosol had transferred from his account with the Credit Union after depositing a Canadian check, for which the Credit Union provisionally credited his account.   When the check was returned as fraudulent, Rosol refused to repay the funds he had transferred.   Cumis paid the Credit Union's claim and then filed suit against Rosol.

Rosol filed an answer to the complaint, the parties undertook discovery, and Cumis filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.   We reversed.  Cumis Ins. Co. v. Rosol, No. A–1584–09 (App.Div. February 22, 2011).   We concluded that Rosol had established the existence of genuinely disputed material facts when he opposed Cumis' summary judgment motion, and therefore the summary judgment motion should not have been granted.   Id. (slip op. at 6–8).   On remand, the case proceeded to trial on liability only and the jury found in favor of Cumis, rejecting Rosol's defenses.   This appeal followed.

Rosol raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I:  SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT WARRANTED WHERE THE BANK'S PROCEDURES WERE BELOW STANDARD OR THAT THE BANK'S EMPLOYEES FAILED TO EXERCISE CARE IN PROCESSING CHECKS.

POINT II:  SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE UCC COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE TEST UNDER N.J.S.A. 12:3–406

POINT III:  SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE CREDIT UNION ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLE COMMERCIAL STANDARDS OF FAIR DEALING.

We fail to discern why Rosol is re-arguing the summary judgment motion.   His arguments concerning the summary judgment motion are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(E).   Moreover, he has waived any issue concerning the jury verdict because “an[y] issue not briefed is deemed waived.”   Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4 on R. 2:6–2 (2014).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM